Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Religion: Necessary, Evil, or Necessary Evil?

A friend of mine recently wrote the following, with the comment that this is how he would explain monotheism to his son when he is old enough:

"Long long time ago, a smart man came up with a work of fiction. He claimed to write it on behalf of a ghost writer and tried to pass it off as non-fiction. The book was a major hit for a small group and thus a cult classic was born. The fans believed themselves to be privileged for only they understood the true message of the book. The book was left open ended with room for a sequel.

Much much later, one of the fan club members took it upon himself to provide a different analysis of the book which was not taken well by the hard core fans. The new writer even went as far as to cite the original ghost writer as a family member. The fan base labeled him a liar and then worked with the powers-that-be to see him off. His death spread word of his interpretation quickly and oddly enough, years after his death his executioners officially released the sequel, somewhat based on his interpretation but mostly with their own. They then took this book and forced it upon the rest of the world they set to conquer.

It wasn’t till long after that the trilogy emerged from a nearby part of the world through another writer, an illiterate one nonetheless, claiming to be a descendant of the original writer and a favorite student of the ghost writer himself. His triquel (?) incorporated elements of the first two books and modernized it for its time. This led to another revolution around the world.

The problem is that all of the fans of all three hate each other because they believe that their lie is more truthful even though they all cite the same fictional ghost writer."

If you look through an objective prism and do not subscribe to any of these three religious ideologies, you can actually see the accuracy of the passage. Unfortunately many people refuse to do that even though as sentient human beings they certainly have the capacity to do so. Therefore, they would see fit to hang someone that believes what my friend above believes even though their faith forbids the killing another human being.

Oddly enough, the day my friend sent me this writeup, I happened to be reading The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families, where Stephen Covey writes the following:

"...studies have shown that religious involvement is a significant factor in mental and emotional health and stability, particularly when individuals are internally motivated. When they are extrinsically motivated-by public approval or conformity, for example-the religious context is not always benevolent. In fact, it sometimes nurtures a culture that is extremely strict and sets unrealistically high expectations, causing people who are emotionally vulnerable to experience even more emotional problems." (Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families (New York: Golden Books Publishing Co., Inc., 1997), p. 300)

I'm not going to delve into the religion vs. atheism argument. Frankly, I don't know the answer let alone try to convince someone else that they must believe what I believe or vice versa. Religion is a very personal thing and if it gives people comfort and puts their mind at peace, I'm all for it. However, it becomes a whole other ballgame when one group tries to force its beliefs onto another group or a nation as a whole, such as the abortion debate.

There are moments that make me wonder what people are thinking. For example, a professional athlete accused of making anti-Semitic remarks once said, "I have nothings against Jews. My best friend is Jewish and his name is Jesus Christ." A part of me wants to go back and ask that same athlete today, "What did your best friend get you for your birthday last year because mine got me an iPod." Or the state politician in Arizona that once made a remark in a public hearing that the earth is only 5,000 years old. Ironically, the hearing was to grant a license to a uranium mining company. If you weren't aware, it was through measuring the radioactive decay of uranium that geologists and geophysicists were able to determine the earth to be 4.54 billion years old.

So, is religion necessary, evil, or a necessary evil? The answer is whatever you think it is, so long as you don't waste your time trying to convince anyone else they're wrong and you're right. I hate to seem like I'm copping out on this one after writing such a long post but this is really the clearest answer to the question.

Enough rambling by me. What do you think? Let me know. I'm curious to read about it. Thanks for reading!!

What the BCS Playoffs should look like...

I wrote a post in February that I revisited in October about what the BCS playoff system should look like. Well, based on my suggestions, here is what the 2009-2010 playoffs would look like:

#1 Alabama vs. #8 Georgia Tech (Orange Bowl)
#2 Texas vs. #7 Ohio State (Sugar Bowl)
#3 Cincinnati vs. #6 Oregon (Fiesta Bowl)
#4 TCU vs. #5 Boise State (Rose Bowl)

I realize that one of my alma maters, the Iowa Hawkeyes, would be eliminated from a BCS Bowl game, as would the Florida Gators. However, I said in my original post in February, only conference champs deserve a spot and at-large spots should only be awarded if there are less than 2 non-BCS conference teams in the top 10 in the final BCS standings. There are two again this year as well as two more in the top 25 overall (BYU at #14 and Utah at #23). It's hard to imagine with the number of January bowl games in addition to the BCS games that any of the non-conference champs would not get a prime bowl game. Iowa and Florida both controlled their own destiny and lost (the Hawkeyes' case, twice) so it's not unfair to bump them, especially considering both TCU and Boise State are unbeaten.

Oddly enough, the TCU-Boise State matchup would still take place in my system, albeit in Pasadena, CA rather than Glendale, AZ. In the current BCS system, I don't like those two teams playing each other because it's a slick way for the BCS to eliminate the issue of how mid-major teams stack up against the power conferences by having the two mid-major teams play each other. I would have preferred seeing TCU play Cincinnati and Boise State play Florida in the current system.

Thoughts? Comments? Please let me know. Thanks for reading!